About your Search

Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
the first thing you do in j.a.g. school, you have a discussion about the difference between the law of war and criminal law. and every military lawyer is taught from the very beginning of their career that law of war detention is designed to neutralize the enemy and to gather intelligence about the enemy. there is a reason that when we capture somebody in a war, we don't give them a trial by jury, we don't give them a lawyer. we have got 3,000 people in american military custody in afghanistan that were captured on the battlefield. and they are held under the law of war because we don't want to let them go back to killing us, and they are not given a lawyer because we're not trying to solve a crime, we're trying to win a war. and here's the question. to my good friend from california, i don't want anyone to believe that under the law of war construct that we have created over the last seven or eight years, that you can be put in jail because you look like a muslim, that you sound like a muslim, that you have got a name muhammad. what happened to japanese american citizens, they were
's tied up in sequestration, and the way the -- as i understand it anyway -- the way the law requires the cuts to be taken, it really is, it really is an axe right at the middle which will be very difficult to do in any kind of smooth way. so i'm confident that, you know, with a little longer-term view the pentagon can be fine. and one of the things that the group agrees on is that both with that time and where we are in terms of our overall requirements in a changing world, the advancement of technology, the quality of the people we have -- and they're the best i've seen in over 43 years of having the privilege to wear the uniform -- that we will be fine from a defense standpoint. but i also would pick up on what senator nunn said, quoting bill perry. and i've seen this in countries and in regions globally where the failure to be able to invest in preventive defense, engagement, having a relationship, helping other militaries train in their own countries, the not being able to do that just increases the likelihood of some kind of conflict breaking out which may or may not involve us.
sponsored it was signed in to law by governor ginned l, it's been ruled unconstitutional. we had a similar kind of challenge in the state of florida. these are setbacks that require constant vigilance and continued work. there will be pushback galore going forward. if we stay true to these five principles, five ideas and we're faithful in the implementation we can reverse the trend and shake the complacent sei that exists in the country. one of the great challenge for our country is to raise accountability, raise standards to set higher expectations of what the next generation needs to know. benchmark it to the world. make it competitive with the world's best. michael talked about how great britain has done that successfully. the united states needs to transform its system of expectations in the same way. common core state standards is the right step in that direction. 46, i think, states have embraced the idea of fewer, higher expectations that require critical thinking skills that are benchmarked to the best in the world. common core will also bring out, unfortunately, for those that are
something and do it well but i was just fooling around. >> >> he worked his way up and went to harvard law school and then one of his brothers emigrated out west to illinois to galena, where the mining industry was at its heyday. he arrived after a month's journey by ship, by stagecoach, by train and arrived in steamboat in this muddy mining town, order themselves in a log cabin, established a law practice in a log cabin and slowly worked his way up to become a very successful lawyer incorporated a lina and then got involved politically, ran for congress and served for eight terms. and then he friended abraham lincoln, obviously from illinois, and then ulysses s. grant also from galena and as they were on the rise, washburn stayed with them as a very close confident and colleague during the civil war and then after grant was elected president, he initially appointed washburn secretary of state. at that time washburn became very ill and his family feared for his life. after about 10 days he submitted his resignation to president grant, and so grant regretfully accepted his resignation. so t
and there is no contest there. under the stimulus law compiled the first database of spending information that span all of the agencies as a result of the data searches that data makes possible, nearly $60 million of grants and contracts funds either recovered or never paid out in the first place. there is nobody else is able to point to results like that. again, i have a different answer for the other four, but i am not trying to take up too much time with this answer. suffice to say that the recovery board is going to be eliminated at the end of september 2013 unless we are able to pass legislation to extend it and build on innovations, and that is exactly what we're trying to do, and we hope that as a result of events like this one we can get that done. >> my nomination would be epa. it may not be the most inventive, but think the fact that they took the regulations platform and turned it into a portal is pro one of the more exciting things to come along. what this means is that for those agencies that are participating to my request is consummate the requests. one central online source will be ferr
are permitted to improve law making. now, senate leader is poised to engage in a power grab for his party and will have consequences beyond the 113th congress. sometimes, if he's successful, that helps democrats. sometimes it helps republicans. it will rarely help the american people. it will serve to reduce the quality of new laws made and further exacerbate the toxic political environment reducing collaborative and facile story compromises that help to civilize our national politics. three points today. first is that we are not a democracy, but we're a republic, and why that matters. second, the senate was intended to be a check on the house to preserve minority rights, and that will might prevail, and, third, more deliberations produces better legislation. first, we're a republic, not a democracy. the founders did not form a democracy, but a republic, and few americans know this today. the fact if you're are as apt as i am in political theory saying we're a republic, not a democracy, and people look at you, but they've lost the understanding of the difference between the two. democracy
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)